نشریه مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر
پیاپی 14 (بهار و تابستان 1396)

The principle of the criminal exoneration is one the main factors of the disciplinary justice and legal procedure so that according to this principle, all people of society are considered as innocence unless their accusation is to be more than a reasonable thought with respect to the law and proven in a related trial. This principle of the criminal exoneration in some criminal cases is a part of the principle. In this article, we are intended to find out an answer to the question whether the concept and effect of infraction in the principle of exoneration and fundamental and reasons of the criminal is the same orientation with the principle. In the first part of the principle, after clarifying the concept of the principle and criminal presumption and its impact, we come to this conclusion that the criminal presumption in the contrast with the exoneration, the verification of accusation comes to an opposite result. It is the main duty of the criminal to offer evidence for proving his innocence. such as organized crime, crimes related to terrorist acts, proceeds from drug trafficking and money laundering, being suspicious in the crime, the responsibility of suspicion calling of another person at night out of his residence, membership in a group or a population whose aim is to disrupt the security of the country. In the second part of this article, my main concepts and reasons of infraction are concerned with the necessity of pragmatism and preserving the society benefits, easiness of proving the complicated and dangerous crimes and establishing an equality between the parties and considering the economic, security and some especial condition of the society and legal equality in performing the legal procedure of criminals. Therefore, we should not ignore the fact that in the performance of equality and saving the social order and people's rights should not be considered as a main framework in the performance of the legal procedure and the infraction of the principle of exoneration and criminal presumption is exceptional fact and it is justifiable only through the law, and in this case, there should be a possibility of proving the opposite side of the principle.

Discrepancy in the meaning of the word breed has led to different views about the inheritance of grandchildren. Because, some jurists believe that the word “breed” can also include the grandchildren as well as the offspring. Some other jurists consider the word metaphorically implying the concept of grandchildren. There are also different views on some occasions like consecration on children, the deportation of a woman due to the custody of one of her children and so on. Therefore, Sheikh Sadugh, unlike the others, believed that grandchildren can inherit if their parents are not dead. Besides, contrary to common belief, he supposed that the daughter of dead son can inherit equal to dead daughter and the son of dead daughter equal to dead son. That is the main reason for inconsistency in the amount of daughters’ inheritance while their companion with the sons. The word “breed” in encyclopaedia and verses and hadiths also means the children of the children and defined as “someone that is born from another one”. Such definition includes the grandchildren, too and custom and sharia can also confirm that. Furthermore, lawyers affirmed offspring meaning by defining the word as “someone who is born directly or indirectly from another one”. Juristic people, in contrary to jurists, do not believe in deprivation of the grandchildren in inheritance owing to the live of dead person’s parents. However, based on the hadiths, daughters’ breed and sons’ breed inherit differently.

Iranian criminal policy about Plurality of Ḥudūd in Iranian Islamic Penal Code (2013) has changed so much. The cause of this issue is the ambiguity about the reason of criminalization and penalization of Plurality of Ḥudūd in the former laws. This ambiguity is also one of the reasons of backing out the criterion of Ḥudūd in the new criminal code. In a way that the plurality of Tazirat Crimes returns to the Penal Code (1973). This means inefficiency of religious punishment in new problems. Therefore this article by analytical- Descriptive method and by use of Quran, Sunnah, the jurisprudential principles and rules, seeks to explain and consolidate the rules of Plurality of Ḥudūd. Outputs of this article implies that unreal Plurality in Hodud is considerable and also the principle in plurality of Hodud that hold out the human rights is implementation of all sanctions. The main purpose of punishing in plurality of crimes is not retribution, but is purification of criminals. So interference of penalty in similar Hodud is not against the justice. So legislator contrary to Emamiyeh Jurisprudents consensus, and only on the basis of Shafeyi, Hanfi, Maleki and Hanbali jurisprudents and by following Egypt's law, sentences on interference of penalty in the execution level named «relative collapse of punishments».

There are several theories and subjects in Islamic jurisprudence and legal on transfer of the thing and property belonging to other like the property which is pledge or the good belonging the right to cancel the right to have option but in the most of theories, transfer of the thing is limited to examine the sale of specified good so what about the rental property also in wider range included several evidences of property belonging to other, such as right of emption, right of exploitation, right of easement or the creditor rights to seized property, is not clear or there is a brief related explanation. So the present paper has developed in order to clarify the validity of rental property to other. In this context resorting to Islamic jurisprudence theories and principles like the rules of Taslit and Lazarar, Lawyer views and number of laws like 454 & 500 of civil code, correctness and validity of renting before and after applying the right of other, is proofed. Also it is expressed the tenant who rent the property belonging to other can cancel the hire contract because of to be ignorance on the right of other and lack of demanding complete interest.

As long as the father or the paternal grandfather of the minors are alive, their affairs and custodianship are in their hands and each of them can assign someone in their will as the executor of the will to take over their responsibilities in their absence or after death. However, the authorities of the executors are limited in three ways regarding making a will related to the minors: observing religious rules, observing what is right and to the benefit of the minor and not appointing a non-Muslim executor to Muslim children. In addition, there are restrictions concerning the issues stated in the will by testator. The most important things which might be mentioned in a will regarding a minor are as follows: managing the minor's properties, conducting his upbringing, his employment and marriage and divorce. There is a consensus regarding that the will executor cannot nullify minor’s marriage. However, there is some disagreement among the jurists over the marriage of the minor to a certain person based on the will. Some consider it valid and others void and argue that the will executor’s authority is limited in this regard. Iran’s civil law has no ruling regarding this issue. In addition to investigating and analyzing both opinions, the former opinion has been strengthened in this study. There is no doubt about the abovementioned authorities for the will executor except for marriage and divorce.

In recent years, several states have adopted the policy of targeted killings. This phenomenon is often referred to as a legitimate and necessary response to terrorism and asymmetric warfare. Zionist regime uses the targeted killings as a means for physical removal of Palestinian militant and their leaders in occupied Palestinian territories. In this article we are going to Survey the compliance of targeted killings with Mentioned Criteria by review this phenomenon in the light of the principles of international law and especially international humanitarian law and focus on this regime’s legal precedent. Targeted killings Occurrence is in armed conflicts. Humanitarian law is a set of rules and principles governing armed conflicts. Therefore the legal analysis of targeted killings is based on international humanitarian law. What the authors scrutinize and analyze results in this case is that Zionist regimes targeted killings don’t comply with the norms of international humanitarian law, and this phenomenon requires the protest and condemnation from international community.